Hayseeds No. 56

This morning's Capitaland Report,

the third in the series, continuing it's rather empty way of protraying the Capital Region and particularly it's youth.

It is yet another silly embracement of Capitalism, and it's interest is limited to simple persuits of rational goals (namely money and finacial status). It's argument is almost as though there is no reason for our existance as a community except to consume.

It's a terrible argument—and a terrible perspective—if only because it is so empty.

There is quite clearly much more to the Capital Region then silly material goals—be it our government, our natural resources, our scholarly resources, or our community. Walmart and Crossgates are nice, as are owning the biggest and best truck on the block, but what do they really mean in the greater perspective of things?

Sumpreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said:

The soul of a man, given time, can put some revealing marks upon his face. The soul of a people invariably makes an indelible imprint on their land... We are today face to face with our last chance to preserve the tiny islands of wilderness that are left... The opposition [to this] comes from another quarter. There must be permission, they argue, to commit the last wilderness to whatever use can be deomstrated to be economically feasible.

There is sadness and tragedy ahead if we take that course. First we should not forget that the remnant of the orginal America that now remains is also a large part of all the wilderness that remains anywhere on earth. What we possess is a unique treause for people everywhere.

So what does this have to do with the Capitaland Report? Everything—as this is one issue that the report doesn't take up. It fails to discuss why our area is so desirable, for those who have greater ambitions then some silly high-technology job.

There is something still wild, something not totally controlled, something truly charistmatic about the Capital Region and the Hudson Valley. It is the first rays of sunshine as they touch the old factories residing on the otherside of the valley. This area reminds me of a Francis Church painting—even while we have grown (sometimes in unfortunate ways), it's still very beautiful as a whole.

Our area, being the center of government for the State of New York is one that elevates the public realm, eventhough we are often very critical of it. But it's always there, and the shadow of the Corning Tower and the rest of downtown is always cast in the back of our eyes.

Ultimately, every society must balance the desire for 'rational' persuits and technologies with 'irrational' needs and desires. We should never subject the 'irrational' with too much control, as that is the sphere where all freedom exists.

In other words, technology and bureaucracy provides a lot of desirable stability, but it must be limited.

Bureaucracy gives us a form democratic freedom, but taken too far, that democratic freedom rapidly becomes a cold form of 'liberal unfreedom'. It might be democratic, but it's tyranncy of the majority or the minority. If the state grows to controlling, there will be no freedom, as all actions with be coercised tacitly or actually. We may be protecting minority rights at the same we are oppressing the minority—that if, when or if the state grows too powerful.

I need not go into details about the problems of liberalism. In short, liberalism suppostly protects many different choices of lifestyle and expression, until it goes 'too far'. When it goes too far, liberalism exists as repressive ideology, trying to end speech. Liberalism (and Marxism) claims to support radical ideas, including Marx and the communism, but few who subscribe to these ideals, actually live up to them. Ideals seem to be suspended in mass-society, where while you may be a Marxist or Green Party member, crass consumption is still okay! It seems that morality exists solely in a vaccum, and that speech does not equivate even action.

Technology is another interesting issue. Technology is more then science and material goods, it is growth, use, and application of ideas. Technology ultimately may liberate us through giving us new, previously unknown capacities. But at the same time, it limits our freedom, by giving us greater degrees of control over man and nature. Control equal dominance, which is the anti-thesis of freedom. This was Marcuse's argument, of course.

I like playing and utilizing technology. But when does it go too far? When technology takes over our identity, where it's relation to us is elevated over our relation to mankind and humankind. My PowerBook Duo that I'm writing this on, is wonderful for what it does. But has it fundamentally taken me over, and taken over my identity? No, as I think it's small, unobtrusive and helpful. I didn't spend hours wasted finding this stupid machine in the mall, and it's old, and still lasting. It's not disposable technology, like all too much of it is nowdays.

The 'irrational'—the charismatic and traditional in society has a lot to offer, and should not be ignored or neccessarly made a slave our our technocratic needs. It's not old in a perjortive sense, it's just older then the latest in technology. But does it not effectively work—although with some problems?

I'm a bit amazed at the fact

that the Ulster County DA is pressing charges against two unitarian ministers who chose to marry to same-sex couples.

Is not religion fundamentally the domain of marriage? While the state perverts the claim of marriage to being of their exclusive domain, it really isn't.

The state and church are seperated, so essentially what the state is providing is a civil union (if your married in front of a magistrate—in other words a city judge) or permission to get married in church.

So, I guess the later is what they are claiming they violated—a statue that requires that all marriages be registered with the state to prevent bastardity.

Of course, such a notion seems rather silly, if only because same-sex couples can't have kids, unless they adopt them—and NY should add previsions for that.

I also strongly support the insitution of gay marriage, as it will normalize gay relationships, hopefully removing the stigma and the deviant behavior that currently is all too common in this group.

This in part why I avoid the word homosexual—as it suggests too much of a sexual relation, eventhough marriage is far more then that—any insitution is far more then just one act it might engage in.

I mean, there is no reason for gays to act any different then the rest of us, except for the choice of a different partner.

At the same time, I should stress that I'm not advocating or condoning gay marriage, instead I'm more entertaining the idea. All I really know is that things are changing in America.

Likewise, my political position should be drawn to imply that I'm gay (although I'm sure 9/10ths of mass societiers will believe that from this).

Today the 9/11 hearings are going on for the second day.

I haven't heard all that much that surpises me—we might have had dozens of chances to stop Bin Laden early on—but at that point he wasn't much of a threat to America, much less do anything wrong or illegal towards the US.

What we were suppost to stop Bin Laden for doing? I know—parking on pavement.

So far I've heard the term 'point of order' once this morning (equalivent of 'objection' in trial courts), although it's not been that contentious.

My point is we couldn't have predicted 9/11—simply because people are autonomous—and people change their minds as they get new evidence. We might have stopped Bin Laden on 9/11, but not on 9/13, or so forth.

Anti-Depressents cause sucide,

or about as close as the FDA would dare get on warning people about these drugs.

Yesterday, the FDA mandated that bigger warnings on various forms of anti-depressents, after years of evidence showing the danger of pumping kids (and adults) heads up full of drugs.

I think the evidence from Columbine and so many other places has shown that giving people drugs to give them artifical strenghten or change behavior is extremely dangerous.

Even more dangerous is a society that needs drugs to keep it going. It's synthetic mass-society—we give you cheap plastic furniture, overpriced cars, vinyl siding, and all kinds of material stuff, but little more.

People want more, they need more. Confused and living without substance, they find themselves resorting to violence or other 'destructive' action (as defined '2/11/04'). Or maybe they just drop out of society, as we know it.

Or they pop pills—I guess Grace Slick was right about one pill making you larger, and one making you smaller—but the one that mother gives you, will really screw you up.

Sigh, I don't know—I just this symptomatic of a bigger problem then anti-depressent medicines.

This weekend I am going

with the Boy Scouts to their campout at Rotary Scout Reservation.

We are staying in a lean-to, and I'm driving—we are packing 5 people + some gear into my infamous Plymouth Sundance. I hope I don't overload it too much—it will be interesting climbing some of those hills outside of Postenkill with the 'dance with all that weight—but I have great faith in the 'dance.

Next Wednesday, 'dance is getting her annual state inspection—I've checked her lights, and I think she will pass with flying colors—no matter how old she might truly be.

Hopefully only another 1 1/2 for Sundance—although I guess I never know. I only have 132,800 miles on it right now—which isn't bad, as I've only done 10,000 in the past year.

The other day (actually on Sunday)

I was walking along Lobell Mill Road, which is a dirt road that runs from Dormansville to Westerlo, and was reminded of something rather interesting.

That would be rural poverty—an issue I've looked at before, as it is a fascinating pheomonon. Along that road there are several people who one could describe as land-rich, but income-poor.

It's just an interesting phenomon—I mean these people probably could be doing pretty good, if they were to sell their land, and give up farming / the 'rural' life to live in a big city (the 'rational' thing to do)—but they won't.

I mean, it's rather interesting what these people in those rundown farm houses and trailers own—most have satelight dishes (typically an abandoned C-band dish and one of those newer digital dishes), and shinny new pickup trucks—sometimes rather expensive ones, like F-250/F-350 super duty trucks.

And there houses looks terrible—it's obvious that they've gone for another dimension beyond aesthetics. Of course, what you view as valuable is a matter of perspective.

I guess rednecks are just demeaned in our society, they're no-nothings, people of poverty who shouldn't count.

But I think they fundamentally different from the urban poor, and no I'm not only talking of race—I'm talking of culture. Yes, in both poor societies, material stuff contains a fair amount of status attached to it, but somehow there is a fundamental difference.

They like to say (urban poor) blacks are fundamentally lazy, unable to hold jobs, and prone to crime—I guess at some level that is true—while rednecks, while possibly stupid (a claim I doubt personally), at least are hard working.

I know—this whole argument has implicit racist connotations—but what debate doesn't? Racism should not be a reason for excluding thought on an issue.